ࡱ> '` bjbjLULU ..?.?~dT 777878\\ 99999:>:: [[[[[[[$ ]ht_v[-O::-O-O[99[RRR-O99[R-O[RRR99 $7KPR[[0\R_P`_RRB_Ux:ARFJ:::[[ER:::\-O-O-O-O1$1d` Running head: FEDERAL AND STATE AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS Conditions Under which Federal and State Tax Dollars can be Legally Provided to Private Schools Fr. Juvenalis Ndaula EDAD.520 A paper presented in partial completion of course requirements for EDAD.520 Legal and Ethical Foundation of Education Leadership Fall, 2009 Abstract The use of public funds in the form of aid to parochial schools has provided an interesting debate for decades. The burning question has been: Whether it is constitutional for tax dollars to be spent by parochial schools? Under the child-benefit theory, government aid has been provided to the students of private and schools, rather than to the schools themselves; by means of this compromise, the constitutional provision against aid to religious institutions is not violated. In a number of cases, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided against state laws providing such aid to parochial schools, claiming that they violate the principle of separation between church and state. The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that public financial aid to parochial and other private schools is permissible so long us the primary purpose is linked to the child benefit theory. This paper also examines briefly the use of public funds in private schools in Tanzania making a comparison to the United States. Table of contents Chapter 1 Introduction 4 Chapter 2 Wall of Separation between the Church and the State 7 Iowa Constitution, IDEA, Section 504, and IEP on aid to private schools 9 Supreme Court overturns Precedents (Cases) 10 Conditions under which school vouchers are Constitutional 15 Public funds to Private Schools in Tanzania 16 Chapter 3 Conclusion 19 References 20 Conditions under which Federal and State Tax Dollars can be legally provided to Private Schools The general trend in our times toward increasing intervention by the government in education affairs has led to a concentration of attention and improvement in childs learning. Education is today largely paid for and almost entirely administered by the government, governmental agencies or non-profit institutions. The role assigned to any government in education is so profound that denying funds to any school on the basis whether it is parochial or private school is incredibly inconceivable. The history of the United States has witnessed the separation of the church and the state on education issues thus the Wall of Separation between the Church and the State (Alexander &Alexander, 2009). Using public funds to pay for children to attend any private school provides financial assistance to low, middle and upper income families. Parents have the fundamental right and primary responsibility for educating their children, and the government should not have the power to force any parent or guardian to send their children to public school. The parents or guardians may choose to educate their children either in a private school or at home without government interference of any type. Here comes the importance of legal institutions to safeguard the rights of individuals or citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently defended the right and responsibility of parents to direct the education of their children. The Supreme Court of the United States has had been always trying to defend the rights of all people as regards to public funds to be used in private schools on the basis that the funds be used to educate all children and not promote or support any other purposes in private or religious schools hence child-benefit theory (Alexander & Alexander, 2009). Problem Statement This paper seeks to establish a historical background of the Wall of Separation between the Church and the State while trying to examine the Iowa code of administration and other statutes on the use of public funds to private schools. On the other hand, the paper traces different cases referring to public funds to be used in private schools and how the Supreme Court ruled them. The question guiding this paper is, Whether it is constitutional for tax dollars to be spent by parochial schools? Definitions Parochial school is one term used to describe a school that engages in religious education in addition to conventional education (Wikipedia). Private schools, also known as independent schools, are not administered by local, state or national governments; thus, they retain the right to select their students and funded in whole or in part by charging their students tuition, rather than relying on public (state) funds (Wikipedia). The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and that or prohibiting the free exercise thereof The two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religious clauses of the First Amendment (Wikipedia). Due process alternatively due process of law or the process that is due, is the principal that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state (Wikipedia). In the Websters Collegiate Dictionary, the editor, Frederick C. Mish, (2005), defines a school voucher as a coupon issued by government to a parent or guardian to be used to fund a childs education in either a public or private school (p.1403). A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate issued by the government by which parents can pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather that the public school to which they are assigned (Wikipedia). Limitations This paper is limited to an examination of the use of public funds in parochial and private schools in the United States while making a comparison of the use of public funds in private schools in Tanzania. Any generalization to aspects other than the use of public funds in private schools is beyond the scope of this paper. Chapter Two Historical background of the Wall of Separation between the church and the state From the third century, the Roman Empire claimed to have a control over the church and all religion. Many Christians were openly persecuted until Constantine issued the Milan Edict in 313 A.D, an edict which provided freedom in religious worship (Alexander & Alexander 2009). As Kern Alexander and David Alexander (2009) clarify: Persecution continued until 321 or 313 A.D., when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, a document of great importance in religious history, providing that liberty of worship shall not be denied to any, but that the mind and will of every individual shall be free to manage divine affairs according to his own choice (p.174). The period of religious intolerance in medieval Europe had revealed the continual struggle between the church and the state. King Henry VIII, for instance, had come into conflict with the church. Alexander and Alexander (2009) note that Henry VIIIs conflict with Rome blossomed into blood internal strife as Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth took the throne and in succession persecuted religious opponents. During Elizabeths long reign, the Church of England was firmly established as the state religion, and the supremacy of the state over the church was complete (p.175). Religious preference in the colonies The conflicts between the church and the state had been also experienced in the New World (America) during the colonial establishment. Alexander and Alexander (2009) suggest that Possibly the greatest early discord occurred in New York City, where Catholic immigrants from Europe, who constituted a large percentage of the total population, launched a determined resistance to the establishment of public schools. This episode was the principal event in the establishment of the parochial schools in America (p.181). Further, Alexander and Alexander (2009) suggest that In New York, Catholic clergy in the late 1830s and 1840s objected to the creation of public schools for the same reasons that were advanced by the Church in France during and after the French Revolution (p.181). One of the points of great conflict related to funding based on the premise that public funds should not be used for church purposes (Alexander & Alexander 2009). Alexander and Alexander (2009) suggest that Pennsylvania advanced a toleration that generally followed William Penns philosophy as expounded in his Frame of Government, promoting freedom of religion. Delaware broke off from Pennsylvania in 1702 and continued this policy of religious freedom and the prohibition of use of public funds for church purposes (p.176). Thomas Jefferson, more than any other person was said to spearhead the movement of separating the church and the state (Alexander & Alexander, 2009). According to Alexander and Alexander (2009) In 1776, while he was in Philadelphia writing the Declaration of Independence, he drafted a proposed constitution for Virginia that stated: All Persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution (p.176). Madisons proposals before the House as stated by Alexander and Alexander (2009) were to finally become the Bill of Rights, which was approved by the requisite number of states in 1791. Prominent among these rights was the separation of church and the state provision, which guaranteed religious freedom and prohibits establishment of religion by government (p.174). The 1800s witnessed a number of letters written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to different churches. According to Alexander and Alexander (2009), Jefferson wrote a letter on January 1, 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, stating that there should be a wall of separation between church and state (p.171). How do Iowa statutes interpret aid to private schools? The Iowa Administrative Code states that private schools are eligible for public funds to buy textbooks: School District may make textbook available to pupils attending accredited non-public schools upon request of the pupil or the pupils parent. Availability is compared as to public schools, limited only to the extent funds are appropriated by the general assembly. (The Iowa General Assembly allocated $ 16,000 for this purpose in 1994-95 and set a limit of $ 20 per pupil.) (Iowa Code 301.1, 29-30). Moreover, the code states that School Districts and area education agency boards may provide school services, e.g. health services; special education services; diagnostic services for speech, hearing and psychological purposes; remedial education programs; guidance services; and school testing to children attending non-public schools in the same manner and to the same extent provided to public school students (Iowa Code 256.12.2.). How do IDEA, Section 504, and IEP say on aid to private schools? However, Laurie U. deBettencourt (2002) discusses aid to private schools when differentiating between the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1973 (IDEA) and Section 504. deBettencourt (2002) attempts to explain the role of IDEA in regard to assisting private schools saying that IDEA is a federal law that governs all special educational services in the United States. IDEA provides some federal funding to state and local education agencies to guarantee special education and related services for those students who meet the criteria for eligibility in a number of distinct categories of disability, each of which has its own criteria. According to deBettencourt, Section 504 is a civic rights statute, rather than federal, programmatic statute; and thus, the federal government does not provide additional funding for students identified. Section 504 requires that schools, public or private, who receive federal financial assistance for educational purposes, not discriminate against children with handicaps (i.e., disabilities) (p.16). Both IDEA and Section 504 support funding for educational purposes of students attending private schools. According o the Individualized Education Program (IEP), Title 20, Chapter 33, Subchapter II 1412 Assistance for education of all children with disabilities: Children with disabilities in private schools and facilities are provided special education and related services, in accordance with the individualized education program, at no cost to their parents, if such children are placed in, or referred to, such schools or facilities by the State or appropriate local educational agency as the means of carrying out the requirements of this subchapter or any other applicable law requiring the provision of special education and related services to all children with disabilities (p.5). Supreme Court overturns Precedents Early court decisions limited public aid to religious schools, however, the Supreme Court recently found an avenue which determined that aid in the form of public funds to private schools do not violate the constitutional separation between church and state. The cases reflecting the crumbing Wall of Separation are discussed in chronological order. Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 US 291 (1899) In Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 US 291 (1899) the Supreme Court first considered the question of financial assistance to religious organization. The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was to secure a secular organisation the hospital and was therefore permissible. According to John Whittle (2006), the court upheld against establishment clause challenge, a federal grant to build a Catholic hospital in the District of Columbia (p.234). Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 (1930) The state of Louisiana passed a law which provided secular text books to all children regardless of whether they were enrolled in secular or sectarian schools. According to Batte (2009) The Plaintiffs challenged the law again using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment instead of the First Amendments Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs argued that the state was taking the taxpayers money and using it for a private purpose to fund parochial schools. The Court appeared to adopt the child benefit theory, though, and found that the sectarian schools in no way benefited from the purchase. Secular school books were allowed in the parochial school (p.2). Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504. (1947) According to Alexander and Alexander (2009), Mr. Justice Hugo Black, delivered the opinion of the court indicating that Of course, cutting off church schools from these (transportation) services, so separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function, would make it far more difficult for the schools to operate (p.186). In Everson, the court ruled it constitutional to benefit children of public and non-public schools. Had the aid been offered to religious schools only, it is likely that the Establishment Clause would have been violated. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S. Ct. 1923. (1968) New York state law required local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grades seven through 12; students attending private schools were included. This case presents the question whether this statute is constitutional because it authorizes the loan of textbooks to students attending parochial schools. The Court upheld the New York law requiring the state to provide sectarian schools with secular text books because parochial schools are performing, in addition to their sectarian function, the task of secular education (p.188). Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105. (1971) The case involved two state laws: one permitting the state to purchase services in secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court held that the government was excessively entangled with religion. The excessive entanglement test, together with the secular purpose and primary effect tests thereafter became known as the Lemon test as Alexander and Alexander (2009) articulated: The Supreme Court enunciated a three-part test for determining whether a state statute is constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: (1) the statutes must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion (p.190). Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 103 S. Ct. 3062. (1983) In this case the Court investigated whether tax benefits designed to reimburse parents of school-age children for tuition, textbooks, and transportation could constitutionally be extended to parents of children attending sectarian school. Alexander and Alexander (2009) describe the affirmation of the Supreme Court indicating that Tax deductions benefiting parents of parochial school children do not violate the Establishment Clause (p.196). Witters v. Washington Department of Services For the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986) In this case, the blind, Witters, sought state financial assistance to attend a Bible college to prepare himself for a career as a minister. Washington State generally provided aid to visually handicapped persons seeking education or training for careers so they could be self-supporting. Nevertheless, the state denied Witters request for aid, citing the Washington State constitutions prohibition of public aid to religion. However, according to Clint Bolick (1998) The Court unanimously upheld the use of college benefit by a blind student to study for the ministry at a divinity school. The state transmitted funds directly to the school at the students direction. Again, the Court found that any aid provided by Washingtons program that ultimately flows to religious institutions does so only as the result of the genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients, and that the program creates no financial incentive for students to undertake sectarian education (p.2). Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 117 S. 1997. (1997) The case is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v. Felton (1985), finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no excessive entanglement between government and religion was apparent. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 120 S. Ct. 2530. (2000) In this case Justice Thomas provided the decision indicating that the federal funds to sectarian schools for acquisition of instructional and educational materials does not violate the Establishment Clause. In his article The Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty, Austin Cline, explains that Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 gave federal funds via state educational agencies to local educational agencies, which in turn, lent educational materials and equipment (library and media materials and computer software and hardware, etc.) to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement secular, neutral, and nonideological programs (p.1). However, it is put by Alexander and Alexander (2009) that it is clear that Chapter 2 aid is allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion, and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on nondiscriminatory basis.Aid is allocated based on enrollment: Private schools receive Chapter 2 materials and equipment based on the per capita number of students at each school (p. 121). Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639. (2002) In this recent case the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers, turning away an Establishment Clause challenge. In brief, Ohios Pilot Project Scholarship Program provided tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parents choosing. The question in this case was Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause? The opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, is that the program does not violate the Establishment Clause. According to U.S Supreme Court Case Summary and Oral Argument, the Court reasoned that, because Ohios program is part of Ohios general undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients and the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or any perceived endorsement, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government (p.1). Under what conditions are school vouchers Constitutional? The three conditions stipulated in the Lemon test should be the yard-stick for public funds to be provided to private schools. Alexander and Alexander (2009) examined that the Supreme Court wanted to determine whether a state statutes is constitutional under the Establishment Clause thus three conditions: (1) the statutes must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advance nor inhibits religion, and (3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion (p.190). The mentioned three conditions must first be present for the public funds to be provided to private schools through school voucher. The public aid, therefore, may be given to private schools as long as it benefits the students and not the other school purposes other than education child-benefit theory. The following cases according to Alexander and Alexander (2009) were ruled considering the above mentioned conditions: The Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105, (1971) ruled that the state aid to parochial schools through salary supplement and purchase of services constitutes impermissible entanglement between church and state; Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 103 S. Ct. 3062, (1983) ruled that tax deduction benefiting parents of parochial school children do not violate the Establishment Clause; Witters v. Washington Department of Services For the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986) the Court unanimously upheld the use of college benefit by a blind student to study for the ministry at a divinity school; Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 2462. (1993) ruled that providing services under the IDEA to student attending Catholic High School does not violate the Establishment Clause; Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 117 S. Ct. 1997, (1997) ruled that payment of title 1 teachers in parochial schools does not violate the Establishment Clause; and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 122 S. Ct. 2460. (2002) ruled that Ohio Voucher Program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Public funds to Private Schools in Tanzania The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania does not say anything on education. The Constitution only invests power to the local government authority in the Act No.15 of 1984, s.50 to transfer authority to people. Local government authorities shall have the right and power to participate, and to involve the people, in planning and implementation of development programs within their respective areas and generally throughout the country (Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, chapter 8 146). The Local Government Act No. 15 of 1984 was enacted to decentralize public sector. The Act gives more authority to District and Urban Councils to approve their plans and budgets (Act. No. 15). The Act also allows the central government to provide conditional and unconditional block grants to local government authorities while significantly reducing the revenue-raising authority of local councils (Act. No.15). R.W. Chidiel, N. Sekwao, and P.L. Kirumba (2000), discussed on how the government made a decision for parents to be involved in education that the previous commitment of the government, immediately after the independence to guarantee free primary education subject to community building a school, was not financially feasible but created a mentality that parents should only contribute to the school construction and uniforms (p.10). Further, Chidiel, Sekwao, and Kirumba (2000), examined that the cost-sharing of the 1990s caused resentment of parents as they were obliged to pay the newly re-established tuition fees, textbooks, stationary transport as well as all other user fees (admission, examination etc.) (p.10). It should be noted here that the country experienced a nationalization of non-governmental schools in 1960s when the mentality of families was affected by governments pledge to guarantee totally free and universal primary education. The fact that for many years families until mid 1990s paid only for uniforms while all other elements of education process were provided free of charge explains the popular resistance of the recent policy of cost-sharing. However, despite the fact that the government does little to support private schools in Tanzania, the government has been helping in paying salaries for some teachers (secondment) in private schools. In their research report No. 03.1 Amon Mbelle and Joviter Katabaro (2003), examined that in Tanzania the government funding of primary and secondary education is low compared to those many sub-Saharan Countries, because the government spends on wages leaving little for school materials. According to Mbelle and Katabaro (2003), A high proportion of the spending goes to personal emoluments or wages (p.5). Comparatively, the United States has solid and well framed legal provisions as regards to public funds and their use in private schools. Tanzania lacks well founded legal provisions on public funds in private schools something that would have been stipulated in the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. This is a great challenge to the Tanzanians; amendments are to be done on the Constitution. Otherwise, the United States does more than the United Republic of Tanzania to provide education to all students following conditions under which tax dollars can be legally provided to private schools. Chapter Three Conclusion The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution contributed to the Wall of Separation between the Church and the State (Alexander & Alexander, 2009). Although the Establishment Clause wants to keep the government from interfering church affairs, yet the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled that the public financial aid to parochial and other private schools is permissible so long us the primary purpose is linked to the child-benefit theory (Alexander &Alexander, 2009). The Iowa Administrative Code has been always clear that the private schools are eligible for public funds particularly in health services; special education services; diagnostic service for speech, hearing and psychological purposes; remedial educational programs; guidance services; and school testing to children attending non-public schools in the same manner and to the same extent provided to public school students (Iowa Code). On the other hand, the IDEA, Section 504, and IEP provide federal funding to state and local education agencies to guarantee special education and related services for those students who meet the criteria for eligibility. The Federal and State tax dollars can be legally provided to private schools unless three conditions are met: (1) the statutes must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advance nor inhibits religion, and (3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The mentioned three conditions must first be present for the public funds to be provided to private schools through school voucher. The public aid, therefore, may be given to private schools as long as it benefits the students and not the other school purposes other than education child-benefit theory (Alexander &Alexander, 2009). References Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. D. (2009). America public school law. (7th ed.). New York: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Batte, S. (n.d). Separation of church and state: Are school vouchers constitutional? Retrieved October 28, 2009, from  HYPERLINK "http://www.members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/vouch3.htm" http://www.members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/vouch3.htm Bolick, C. (1998). Are school vouchers constitutional? Retrieved November 5, 2009 from  HYPERLINK "http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba272" http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba272 Chidiel, R.W., Sekwao, N., & Kirumba, P.L. (2000). Private and community schools in Tanzania (Mainland): Mechanisms and strategies of educational finance. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning/UNESCO 7-9 rue Eugene Delacroix, 75116. Cline, A. (n.d). The Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from  HYPERLINK "http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_MichtellHelms.htm?p=1" http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_MichtellHelms.htm?p=1 Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). (2000). Columbia University Press. Education of individuals with disabilities. (n.d). Retrieved from  HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/usc_sec_20_00001412----000-.html" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/usc_sec_20_00001412----000-.html Establishment clause of the First Amendment. (2008). Retrieved October 28, 2009, from  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment Iowa Constitution (Administrative Code) Mbelle, A., & Katabaro J. (2003). School enrolment, performance and access to education in Tanzania: Research report No. 03.1. Tanzania: Dar es salaam. Mkuki na Nyota Publishers Ltd. Mish, F. C. (ed.). (2005). Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary. (11th ed.). Massachusetts: Springfield, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Should government aid students attending parochial schools? (1997). Retrieved October 28, from  HYPERLINK "http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-c.html" http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-c.html The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. U.S Supreme Court Case Summary and Oral Argument. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from  HYPERLINK "http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1751/" http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1751/ Wikipedia. Wittle, J. (2006). Gods Joust, Gods Justice: Law and religion in Western Tradition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.     Aid to parochial schools  PAGE 5 !&(8:=>D[yz+ , a 5 4JScm.P¾ɺ h!&h!&h!& h+h+hY?h+h5 h Bh hPheW5heW5h+ hpgIhpgI hpgIh6 hpgIhNo h65h+y h+y5 hNo5 hPhNohPh/e- hPhP79:;<=>?@ABCDz$a$gdNo$a$gdPb c d`gdeW5$a$gdeW5gd+gdNo$a$gdNo U_ Ydklmnodgd+dgd!&$d`a$gd5 d`gdeW5%OVqr|]dgjklmnCM$DGHbch`bhrhMLjCJaJh`CJaJhrCJaJhE6h`h hPh hPhxThxTh5 h+ h+h+ h+h!& h!&6h7hY?h!& h!&h!&:G  M d`gdY d`gd|" d`gdodgdYdgdN d`gd` d`gd`b$a$gdxT d`gdeW5_c FGz{ QdǼ}h=mH sH homH sH hoh)>*mH sH h)mH sH hoh)5mH sH h,a6 h8[L6 hxT6 hPhNhE6hh!/~hNh$'6hNhN6 hN6hNh$'hMLjh/)h`bhkmH sH - 7?y&'>JKLMXYgy  Ĵumeh|"mH sH hSiPmH sH hkh,amH sH hH Mh,a6mH sH h,amH sH h|"h|"h|"h|">*h|" h|"5h|"h|"5hrh,a6hohohR|h!/~hR|5h)h)mH sH h)mH sH homH sH h=mH sH hoh=>*mH sH % !!+!4!5!A!S!`!|!!!!!!!""""""""E#]#g#m#####$$$$:$<$F$G$W$X$Y$$$·||||x|h~Kh 3rh 5,h#Jhcnh 5,6 hY?6 hMLj6 h 3r6hFbrmH sH hf7mH sH hMLjmH sH hMLjhMLjmH sH hMLj6mH sH hMLjhMLj6mH sH hAmH sH h 3rh|">*mH sH h|"mH sH h|"h|"5mH sH / !!""""""""""""""E#%(?(dgdN7 d`gdi d`gd 5, $da$gdY?dgd 5, d`gdf7dgdMLj d`gdY$$((?(m(r(v({((((((;*D*E*{*R+S+^++++++,!,,,e--..D/E/z//?1]1_1a1n11111112 2 2*2@2D2E222%4&4B45ħhih^Sh2h<hc@6 hY?6h<h<6h<h h'whSho=h 5,6hwjhh~Kh\hihN7hN76hN7h 5,h#J=?(S+e-0 2E25>6:}==??*?BAAdgdpw d`gdpwdgd\ d`gdVdgdr d`gd#Sdgdi d`gdYdgd< d`gd d`gd 5, d`gdi5555566 666'6<6=6>6G6f6p6666666666666677;7E78899:]:^:b:::s=z={=|=}=======$>,>H>^>>>ƾ¹ƪhVh6{ hVhVhcnhr6 h)y6hJgfhu5Bhh3h+hG1h[eh'ihDJ h6hihi6 hi6hihlhd'G<>>>>>>>?????"?#?)?-?A?T?V???N@@@@AABAoApAqA}A~AAAAAAC*D+Dɽɵɵzrnje h9{96hh/hB hIshpw6+hIsB*CJOJQJ^JaJmH phsH hIshIs6 hIs6hpwhpw6hpwh ?hIshu-hTh6{hh#Th\6h\ h6{6hTh\6 h\6 h>6 hr6hr h+] h6{]h+h0]'A+DlDFF IWILL4MNBOCO"SXSdgdw{{ d`gd!&gd d`gddgdI d`gd dgd d`gdvJ8dgd> d`gd>dgdB d`gd#T+DHDdDeDkDlDDDDDDDDE'EEEEE!F"FWFiFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGG5H7HGHJHXHbHHII I1INIOIVIWIڽhvJ8hr| hvJ86hr| hr| 6 hr| 6h hvJ86hzhr| h ?h>6h>h>h>6 h!&6hdnhdn6h ?hdnh9{9hI\h ?hB 6hB h ?6hB hB 66WIcJdJvJzJJJ=KAK`KkKnKtKLLL M,M-M3MKMWMM#NBNJNNNONpN{NNNNNNNO OOOOOO O"O#O&O(O,O-O.O:OAOBOƾ֛hhB~h8Q<6hB~hB~61hB~hB~B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH phsH h8Q<6 h6hh6h)hhB~hI6 hB~6hIhI6 h>6hIhB~h=h'hrNh 5BOCOROOOPPPPPzR!S"S4SPSQSWSXS8U9UAUJUjUkUqUUU@VAVPVTVVV{sk_WR hW6hWhW6hWhW6mH sH hWmH sH h?.0mH sH h~emH sH h~ehP6mH sH hPmH sH h~e6mH sH hPhP6mH sH hPhS6mH sH h#S6mH sH hpIBmH sH hB~hw{{6 hB~6hw{{hw{{6 h+6hw{{hB~h8Q<hhDOhh8Q<6 XS9UrUY!Zc^^afgjIoqttttt$d`a$gdr d`gd4(dgdEj d`gd+3dgdH M d`gd`dgd0 d`gdPdgdP d`gdDOVVVVVVVWWXX'X>XdXiXoYYYY Z Z ZZZ Z!Z(ZZZZ[[[[[[\Ǿ|t|ldl|lh?mH sH htmH sH hSmH sH h~emH sH h0mH sH h~eh06mH sH h~e6h~eh~e61h~eh~eB*CJOJQJ^JaJmH phsH h~e6mH sH h0h06mH sH hghhsD! hghghsD!mH sH hDOh/!hW hWhW$\8\@\w\x\\\\\\\\\\Y^Z^a^b^c^^^^^__4_5_9_:_______``?aaaaab+b-b1b2bibjbnbŽŵhdmH sH h+3hmPmH sH hO_mH sH h;}mH sH hHmH sH h mH sH h+3mH sH h AmH sH hU mH sH hH M6henhen6h0h` h`h`h`h`6h?ht htht1nbbHcccccccd dddddd d"d#d&d(d-d.dAdBddddeee7f8fwfffffggg]g^g|uqmhQhFi hFihFi hr<_6hr<_hr<_6hV/mH sH hdmH sH hdhd6mH sH hmPmH sH hEj hEjhEjhB~hEj61hB~hEjB*CJOJQJ^JaJmH phsH hEj6hhEj6hEjmH sH hO_mH sH hO_6mH sH *^ggggggZhhh iiiNjTjhjkjjjjjjj kkkGkdkekkkUl]l_lhlllllmHoooooppjpvpqqrrrrs4sNssttttttthenmH sH h?{mH sH h'mH sH hFihFih?!DhH7h* h.(h^Zh \hjhhhFhQh4(hDgh/6hFiAttttttttt t.t9tMvx{{{{{{{{{ d`gds|P d`gd7dgdVv $da$gdY?$d`a$gdrt t.t8t9t=titottttttt-vzvwwxx2yByJy~{{{{{{{{{{{{{{#|%|*|+|-|.|6|}||||˿װ|xh 5,jh 5,Uh1hr6hyj5hhhH*hhh;q6h;qhr hVh7hs|PmH sH hVvmH sH h<hs|Pht/hX^hVh?!Dh(v hVhV h76h7h76 hY?6h7/{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{%|$}}~5<dgd$dgddgdr$d`a$gdr|||||!}"}$}*}+}-}.}}}~}}}}}}}}e~~~~~~!2BCOѶѩɝ̈́̈́|͋n|jvhhUjhU hh hWhhWhmH sH hWhfhf6hfhJh0JjqhUjhUhyj5hhhrh {h 5,0Jjh 5,Ujh 5,Uh 5, h 5,h 5,' 45BCST_|}ЀрҀ'(DEWi{p{g{_Z_UQMhvhr h'6 h;q6hvhr6hJh0Jj?hUjhUh h6h;qh6hq1hq1mH sH hq1mH sH h#S\]mH sH h#Sh#SH*\]mH sH hq1hq1\]mH sH hq1\]mH sH h$hq16\]mH sH h$jhUhh0J6inpqr~ƁȁɁʁ;<W^<ACijmnÃփ׃5Žɹ h=h=jh=Uh= h;q6h=hv6h$hNnAhNnAH* h$6hNnAhNnA6hNnAh* h* 6h* hfh<hVghJhv0JjhvU hrhvjhvUhvhr25789yz{|}JLMN !#$&')ʹܹܡܔ͐||||xnjh?!D0JUh?!Dh$Djh$DUhh6hhrh9nh`0Jj& h`Ujh`U h<6 h`h` h`6h`h`6h<hsKF hFihsKFh`hJh=0Jjh=Ujh=Uh=*} "#%&()$a$gd6dgdn\dgdrhh$Dh?!DhY0JmHnHujh?!D0JU h?!D0J,1h/ =!"#$% qDyK 9http://www.members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/vouch3.htmyK http://www.members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/vouch3.htmyX;H,]ą'cDyK http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba272yK Thttp://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba272yX;H,]ą'cDyK Ohttp://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_MichtellHelms.htm?p=1yK http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_MichtellHelms.htm?p=1yX;H,]ą'cDyK Fhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/usc_sec_20_00001412----000-.htmlyK http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/usc_sec_20_00001412----000-.htmlyX;H,]ą'cDyK Ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_AmendmentyK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_AmendmentyX;H,]ą'cDyK Ahttp://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-c.htmlyK http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-c.htmlyX;H,]ą'ciDyK 7http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1751/yK http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1751/yX;H,]ą'c@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List4U@4 d Hyperlink >*phROR >bodytext dd[$\$]^OJQJFV@F ;qFollowedHyperlink >*B* phXO"X W aa-subtitle1 hh5B*OJQJ\^JphB^@2B en Normal (Web)dd[$\$4@B4 6Header  !4 @R4 6Footer  !.)@a. pgI Page NumberVOrV rDefault 7$8$H$!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH ~ z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z !(C07'>D LSZb>i lrs?@ABCDzbcU_ Ydk l m n o G   ME ? S#e%( *E*->.2}5577*7B99+<l<>> AWADD4EFBGCG"KXK9MrMQ!RcVVY^_bIgilllllllllllll l.l9lMnpsssssssssssssssssssssss%t$uuvw5xyz?@ABCDzbcU_ Ydk l m n o G   ME ? S#e%( *E*->.2}5577*7B99+<l<>> AWADD4EFBGCG"KXK9MrMQ!RcVVY^_bIgilllllllllllll l.l9lMnpsssssssssssssssssssssss%t$uuvw5xyz AWAD4EFBGCGXK9MrMQ!RcVV^lls%t$uv5xyz{|~0000/T0.0.00000/00'00.00-0,0000&00000000`00 0 0 0 00 0000000000000000000000 0@0@00%00  $5>+DWIBOV\nb^gt|i5DIKLMOQRTUVXYZ[]_`abd  ?(AXSt{EGHJNPSW\^cFtt!u}uuuBwww|xxyqyyz{8|y|}M}}~XXXXXXX!8@0(  B S  ? _Hlt245784306 _Hlt245784307l}l}~@@m}m}~~r$HsGt$GuFvFwdFx$MyIz$J{I|K}O~LK$ONdJdNLJMNJ$LdMO$PdPPP$QdQQQ$RdRRR$SdSSS$TdTTT$UdUUUн4ԽֽϽսԽtӽ4ֽν4ϽѽtԽ4нӽϽҽtҽнνtֽԽtϽtѽ\aaaa\a\a\aaaa\aaaa+l+,+,+WkXkVk,440p$pdppp$pdppp$pdppp$pdppp$pdppp$pdppp$pdpp  YYa $$ww #!Q!4"4"#$#$$$$A&&&Q'Q'***(,(,77G7G7#9#9M9W9u9u999N<Y<>>>>CAE E2G2GGGGHHH:K:KKKPM^MRRR,S,S6S;SV^d^ggmhmhii5j5jRkRkssstt v vgvgvwwxx#xzzzzzzzK{Z{Z{|||}}}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@BACEDFGHIJKLMNORPQSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlkmnopqrstuvwyxz|{}%%   aam-- 0!W!;";"/$/$$$$M&&&X'X'***,,,,77I7I77979V9\9y9y999R<_<>>>>IAE&E6G6GGGGHHH>K>KKKTMdMRRR5S:SJSJSZ^j^gguhuhii=j=j_k_kssttt(v(vlvlvww"x-x-xzzzzzzzX{e{e{|||}~~~  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@BACEDFGHIJKLMNOQRPSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlkmnopqrstuvwyxz|{}B~*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9vA*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8pC*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=M>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=N?*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9}B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace p\~}~}~~}}v~}~}}p}p}p}p~}p}}~}vvv}p}v}p}v}}v~}}~}vNM~}}v~}~}}v}~}}~}NM}NM~}}~~}~}v}NMM~}}~}~~}}~}~~}v}p}~p}p}}NM}v}~~p}v}p}MN}pvVVVVVVt"u$u*u,u-uqyzzzz%z{z|}||||}}}}}}~~~~~ ~ ~"~#~%~&~(~)~~~~~~t#uNyz{|||}~~~~~ ~ ~"~#~%~&~(~)~~~~~UYcd   7*7PAWAss)t6tt"u$u7uvvwxqyzx{{{z|}}}}}~~~~~ ~ ~"~#~%~&~(~)~~~VVt"uqyz{z|}}~~~~~ ~ ~"~#~%~&~(~)~~  WA@Yb&Ni Ni .S Z 5P.S 7|b !7]?zb& h .{NAlXp WCKz7|b:fD [N!nDA 333333333333Sd)/h5Z/mnDAnB/R/RXp2$SSd)xxA@YqYZ hh!7] .{:fCK /hayNAlZ/mzH h35n;s ay[N!+4rN YCSH08V<w4 U /$ 1 r| 5  x .(0?ZG19E\NQg/6g>Z+"7* /!sD!a!$C"#+# $B$VS$u$!&$'4(/)CR*M_* 5,77-/e-u-'. /V/h/t/?.0|n0q1223+3S34p447 5 35eW5yj56E6H7N7 8vJ8fY8799{9*<8Q<=J>>?5n?c@0YAcANnA B B5Bu5B7BpIBUB?!D$DsKFLOFhFd'GOGHs^IpgI#J~K7L8[LrLH MNK8NjNOSiPmPs|P*Q!RRXRT"T#TU!UgViW:jWIZ^ZQc[ \@\I\Kf\n\t\}\X^r^c1_r<_N_O_$`"y`,ama/sa`bOefRe#[e~efJgfVgi'iFiMLjlAmcneno"o9op;p;qHqHqrr 3r@rFbrEUtEtvv(vn:v'wawvxyKnyWz6{w{{2|l}~0 ~!/~B~G~X~6>X!>+0DO~f<+D+f8r/[ (pwYY])1Is)FITW`PA'#qY?%nb). $UtNo #hQ`VVv{02x`?Z)X\+y_*+R|go AdkW9Di@*6A# g-S~6=#SB 'E66f<n)y{3O,f7?d ,^SrS<R?{uS"'} >3i@}{i%']Ftf |""}0NhrzDJ ?b wj=(*(|'Pj!58m35Ak2ANt( ddn6gDgo==[e^o|#3yCxTSg;}E1Ej@~@UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Cx ArialA& Trebuchet MS"1hN&N&ZܦKk@Kk@!4d}}3HX ?~2AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLSFr JuveFr JuveOh+'0  ( H T ` lxAID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLSFr Juve Normal.dotFr Juve2Microsoft Office Word@F#@ÿz@ @ Kk՜.+,D՜.+,D hp|  @}' AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA*[7http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1751/]Ahttp://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-c.htmlZ4 Ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment  Fhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/usc_sec_20_00001412----000-.htmlo0Ohttp://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_MichtellHelms.htm?p=1Jhttp://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba272]9http://www.members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/vouch3.htm  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdeghijklmopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FpgQ%Data f1Tablen_WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q